[LoganDark]

The value in Claude Code is its harness. I've tried the desktop app and found it was absolutely terrible in comparison. Like, the very nature of it being a separate codebase is already enough to completely throw off its performance compared to the CLI. Nuts.

[deaux]

> The value in Claude Code is its harness

If this was the case then Anthropic would be in a very bad spot.

It's not, which is why people got so mad about being forced to use it rather than better third party harnesses.

Pi is better than CC as a harness in almost every respect.

[enochthered]

Anthropic limiting Claude subs to Claude code is what pushed me away in the end because I wanted to keep using Pi.

[strel0k1]

Just sign up for an AWS account and use the Anthropic models through Bedrock which Pi can use.

[seunosewa]

API costs are really high compared to subs.

[solenoid0937]

Then you aren't the target market.

[adrianN]

Why use tricks to support a company that is hostile to your use case?

[deaux]

What advantage are you saying this has compared to just directly going through the Anthropic provider? They are the same price.

[bizzletk]

Can you enumerate why?

[deaux]

- Claude Code has repeatedly had enormous token wastage bugs. Its agent interactions are also inefficient. These are the cause of many of the reports of "single prompt blew through 5-hour quota" even though it's a reasonable prompt.

- It still lacks support for industry standards such as AGENTS.md

- Extremely limited customization

- Lots of bugs including often making it impossible to view pre-compaction messages inside Claude Code.

- Obvious one: can't easily switch between Claude and non-Claude models

- Resource usage

More than anything, I haven't found a single thing that Pi does worse. All of it is just straight up better or the same.

[Mashimo]

I thought the desktop app used the cli app in the background?